Review: Canon EOS M50 by TDP

[Jack Jian]

is there any improvement in IQ between 80d, SL2 and M50. There is a jump from digic 6 to 8 between them.

For IQ alone, SL2 is the best, the difference is subtle but it's there. A tad better DR and sharper. Like the old 5D with weak AA filter, this SL2 is sharpest among all Canon's APS-C. Also, the raw file is very different from 800D and 77D and from 80D as well, probably because of Adobe's engine, but the differences are there. SL2 is the best. 77D, 800D, and 6D II raw files are very very similar.

 

[ritholtz]

is there any improvement in IQ between 80d, SL2 and M50. There is a jump from digic 6 to 8 between them.

For IQ alone, SL2 is the best, the difference is subtle but it's there. A tad better DR and sharper. Like the old 5D with weak AA filter, this SL2 is sharpest among all Canon's APS-C. Also, the raw file is very different from 800D and 77D and from 80D as well, probably because of Adobe's engine, but the differences are there. SL2 is the best. 77D, 800D, and 6D II raw files are very very similar.

I have problem with exposure metering with my Sl2. Not sure if something is wrong with my unit. It over exposes a lot with live view shooting. With view finder it is fine. It happened few times.

 

[harris92]

Canon EOS M50 really cool camera, who wants to buy now, it's time to take advantage of the discount on https://www.amazon.com/Canon-Mirrorless-Camera-EF-M15-45mm-Video/dp/B079YCW48M . I had a few friends take it for filming home video and were very pleased. In this camera are collected chips from previous models and there are many improvements. So this is Canon's most well-rounded mirrorless camera. I'm also very interested in portrait cameras, I would like one of the same EOS series https://www.bestadvisor.com/cameras-for-portraits . I like the price and characteristics, what do you think about it?

 

[Cory]

Just got mine and the 22mm lens should arrive today.
Did some nice customization to the controls which I'll post about in the near future.
It with the small lens should make a nice travel combo. Won't do-it-all, but is tiny.

 

[ahsanford]

If by taking EF-M seriously you mean making EF-M lenses that duplicate EF and EF-S lenses, I don't think Canon is going to go down that road very far. It does seem like an EF-M 35mm is on the way, but I don't expect much more.

And Canon's not even updating it's faster/nicer EF-S glass anymore. If my read of Keith's great EFlens.com charts is correct, there hasn't been:

... an EF-S zoom faster than f/5.6 on the long end since 2006 (and only 2 ever, I believe)
... an EF-S ring USM lens since 2009
... an EF-S prime faster than f/2.8 ever

(Keith, there's a typo on the most recent 18-55, which you have listed as USM.)

But let's not make this out to mean that Canon is holding back EF-M. They are just holding EF-M to the same level of (very low) esteem as the EF-S mount.

- A

 

[Talys]

If by taking EF-M seriously you mean making EF-M lenses that duplicate EF and EF-S lenses, I don't think Canon is going to go down that road very far. It does seem like an EF-M 35mm is on the way, but I don't expect much more.

And Canon's not even updating it's faster/nicer EF-S glass anymore. If my read of Keith's great EFlens.com charts is correct, there hasn't been:

... an EF-S zoom faster than f/5.6 on the long end since 2006 (and only 2 ever, I believe)
... an EF-S ring USM lens since 2009
... an EF-S prime faster than f/2.8 ever

(Keith, there's a typo on the most recent 18-55, which you have listed as USM.)

But let's not make this out to mean that Canon is holding back EF-M. They are just holding EF-M to the same level of (very low) esteem as the EF-S mount.

- A

I don't know that "low esteem" is the way I'd put it.

We all have to live with compromises, right? It's you can only have two of price, size, and aperture, and the easiest one to knock out of the equation for consumer lenses is a wide aperture.

I don't think anyone wants a big or expensive EFS lens, and even the beloved 17-55/2.8 is a physically large lens by most standards for its focal length.

 

[ahsanford]

I don't think anyone wants a big or expensive EFS lens, and even the beloved 17-55/2.8 is a physically large lens by most standards for its focal length.

Disagree. Better lenses in crop need to be a small part of the portfolio, even if physics insists they are large/unwieldy. Many people here would give vital anatomy for fast, first party AF crop glass, and Canon has not offered it since 2006 with the 17-55.

In particular is the standard zoom and UWA zoom need, where a crop user is SOL for fast zoom that doesn't '1.6x them' into having to change out lenses that often. Whenever I used my 24-70 f/2.8L I on my old crop camera, I was constantly changing it out for the EF-S 10-22 for that 25% of the time wider need -- and usually just for the 18-22 end of that lens. The problem was completely solved when I went to FF with that same L zoom.

I think EF-S and EF-M need to take one very small step towards Fuji here -- just throw us a bone with a modest but solidly built/sealed 15-45 f/4 IS USM and this 32 f/1.4 we've been hearing about.

I appreciate Canon wants us all in FF buying pricier glass, but some of (a) will never leave crop or (b) some of us will moonlight away from FF with our old crop rigs and there isn't much no-bigger-than-it-needs-to-be first party glass to put on them.

- A

 

[BillB]

I don't think anyone wants a big or expensive EFS lens, and even the beloved 17-55/2.8 is a physically large lens by most standards for its focal length.

Disagree. Better lenses in crop need to be a small part of the portfolio, even if physics insists they are large/unwieldy. Many people here would give vital anatomy for fast, first party AF crop glass, and Canon has not offered it since 2006 with the 17-55.

In particular is the standard zoom and UWA zoom need, where a crop user is SOL for fast zoom that doesn't '1.6x them' into having to change out lenses that often. Whenever I used my 24-70 f/2.8L I on my old crop camera, I was constantly changing it out for the EF-S 10-22 for that 25% of the time wider need -- and usually just for the 18-22 end of that lens. The problem was completely solved when I went to FF with that same L zoom.

I think EF-S and EF-M need to take one very small step towards Fuji here -- just throw us a bone with a modest but solidly built/sealed 15-45 f/4 IS USM and this 32 f/1.4 we've been hearing about.

I appreciate Canon wants us all in FF buying pricier glass, but some of (a) will never leave crop or (b) some of us will moonlight away from FF with our old crop rigs and there isn't much no-bigger-than-it-needs-to-be first party glass to put on them.

- A



Maybe the price/size/potential sales equation just doesn't work (or at least Canon hasn't been persuaded that it was worth trying). How much cheaper and lighter would an EF-S or EF-M 15-40 f4 be than the EF 16-35 f4?

 

[ahsanford]

Maybe the price/size/potential sales equation just doesn't work (or at least Canon hasn't been persuaded that it was worth trying). How much cheaper and lighter would an EF-S or EF-M 15-40 f4 be than the EF 16-35 f4?

1) Agree $999 crop only lenses probably aren’t selling well. :. I still think Canon needs 1-2 good ones for folks who want to keep things small.

2) Take away the need to cover a FF image circle and I think you could have a 67-ish thread sized lens at 2/3 the weight and sell well around $599-699. Think of it like the non-L 24-105 STM lens, but for crop. And sealed. And constant max aperture. (Okay, a 24-105L for crop. You got me.)

- A

 

[DSP121]

Thank you so much for sharing the review!

 

[DSP121]

Thank you so much for sharing the review!

 

[fullstop]

1) Agree $999 crop only lenses probably aren’t selling well. :. I still think Canon needs 1-2 good ones for folks who want to keep things small.

2) Take away the need to cover a FF image circle and I think you could have a 67-ish thread sized lens at 2/3 the weight and sell well around $599-699. Think of it like the non-L 24-105 STM lens, but for crop. And sealed. And constant max aperture. (Okay, a 24-105L for crop. You got me.)

Looking at various 16-50mm zoom lenses for APS-C mirrorless systems [@ crop 1.6 = 24-105 FOV eq.] and EF-M 18-55 / 3.5-5.6 specs [52mm filter thread, L x D 61 x 60.9 mm, 210 grams] my GUESSTIMATE is that innovative Canon should be able to make a compact, very decent IQ constant aperture Canon EF-M 16-50mm f/4 IS STM with 55mm filter thread [= max. used on EF-M lenses, eg 18-150 and 11-22], sized between 18-55 and 18-150, weight about 300 to max. 350 grams, priced at USD/€ 499. And yes, I would buy it.

OTOH I will never buy EF-M or any other crop-only lens for more than 500 - unless it were a pancake 24-200/2.8. I am generally not interested in f/1.2 or f/1.4 crop lenses. I am also not interested in even more EF-M wide-angle lenses. I am very interested in a compact, decent IQ, moderately fast EF-M portrait tele prime and would definitely buy an EF-M 85mm / 2.4 IS STM (or similar) at USD/€ 399,-

And I am convinced my preferences are shared by enough other existing and future EOS-M owners to make those 2 lenses "worthwhile". At least as worthwhile as a "minority program" EF-M 32/1.4 ... at what 599 / 799 / 999 ? Well for 999 Canon would probably have to paint a red ring on it. ;D

 

[BillB]

1) Agree $999 crop only lenses probably aren’t selling well. :. I still think Canon needs 1-2 good ones for folks who want to keep things small.

2) Take away the need to cover a FF image circle and I think you could have a 67-ish thread sized lens at 2/3 the weight and sell well around $599-699. Think of it like the non-L 24-105 STM lens, but for crop. And sealed. And constant max aperture. (Okay, a 24-105L for crop. You got me.)

Looking at various 16-50mm zoom lenses for APS-C mirrorless systems [@ crop 1.6 = 24-105 FOV eq.] and EF-M 18-55 / 3.5-5.6 specs [52mm filter thread, L x D 61 x 60.9 mm, 210 grams] my GUESSTIMATE is that innovative Canon should be able to make a compact, very decent IQ constant aperture Canon EF-M 16-50mm f/4 IS STM with 55mm filter thread [= max. used on EF-M lenses, eg 18-150 and 11-22], sized between 18-55 and 18-150, weight about 300 to max. 350 grams, priced at USD/€ 499. And yes, I would buy it.

OTOH I will never buy EF-M or any other crop-only lens for more than 500 - unless it were a pancake 24-200/2.8. I am generally not interested in f/1.2 or f/1.4 crop lenses. I am also not interested in even more EF-M wide-angle lenses. I am very interested in a compact, decent IQ, moderately fast EF-M portrait tele prime and would definitely buy an EF-M 85mm / 2.4 IS STM (or similar) at USD/€ 399,-

And I am convinced my preferences are shared by enough other existing and future EOS-M owners to make those 2 lenses "worthwhile". At least as worthwhile as a "minority program" EF-M 32/1.4 ... at what 599 / 799 / 999 ? Well for 999 Canon would probably have to paint a red ring on it. ;D

Benchmarking against the EF 16-35 f4, you want an EF-M 16-50 with a 50% increase in zoom range at half the weight and half the cost. I can understand why that would appeal to you.

 

[john kriegsmann]

I really would like to buy the Canon M50, with the Digic 8 processor, improved autofocus and other improvements that make if much more feature rich than the M5 at a lower price point. What is hugely disappointing is the lack of native lenses. After reading all the reviews the only lenses that appear remotely worthwhile are the wide angle 11-22 and the pancake 22m. Compare Canon's meagre options with the full line of small but fast zooms and primes offered by upstart Fuji. Canon Rumors has been hinting at a new Canon M 50 mm lens for over a year with constantly "slipping" release dates It looks like Canon once again is ignoring its customers by producing new feature rich mirrorless bodies and figuring customers will have to make due by spending $200 dollars for a M to ef adapter to attach heavy ef lenses to tiny mirrorless bodies. I am planning a Fall cruise to the Canadian Maritime provinces looks like I will be bringing either a Sony or Fuji mirrorless system with me to compliment my Canon 5d4.

 

[fullstop]

1) Agree $999 crop only lenses probably aren’t selling well. :. I still think Canon needs 1-2 good ones for folks who want to keep things small.

2) Take away the need to cover a FF image circle and I think you could have a 67-ish thread sized lens at 2/3 the weight and sell well around $599-699. Think of it like the non-L 24-105 STM lens, but for crop. And sealed. And constant max aperture. (Okay, a 24-105L for crop. You got me.)

Looking at various 16-50mm zoom lenses for APS-C mirrorless systems [@ crop 1.6 = 24-105 FOV eq.] and EF-M 18-55 / 3.5-5.6 specs [52mm filter thread, L x D 61 x 60.9 mm, 210 grams] my GUESSTIMATE is that innovative Canon should be able to make a compact, very decent IQ constant aperture Canon EF-M 16-50mm f/4 IS STM with 55mm filter thread [= max. used on EF-M lenses, eg 18-150 and 11-22], sized between 18-55 and 18-150, weight about 300 to max. 350 grams, priced at USD/€ 499. And yes, I would buy it.

OTOH I will never buy EF-M or any other crop-only lens for more than 500 - unless it were a pancake 24-200/2.8. I am generally not interested in f/1.2 or f/1.4 crop lenses. I am also not interested in even more EF-M wide-angle lenses. I am very interested in a compact, decent IQ, moderately fast EF-M portrait tele prime and would definitely buy an EF-M 85mm / 2.4 IS STM (or similar) at USD/€ 399,-

And I am convinced my preferences are shared by enough other existing and future EOS-M owners to make those 2 lenses "worthwhile". At least as worthwhile as a "minority program" EF-M 32/1.4 ... at what 599 / 799 / 999 ? Well for 999 Canon would probably have to paint a red ring on it. ;D

Benchmarking against the EF 16-35 f4, you want an EF-M 16-50 with a 50% increase in zoom range at half the weight and half the cost. I can understand why that would appeal to you.

exactly. It COULD work in EF-M mount in my OPINION. I would even take it with a plastic lens mount, LOL. Provided it is compact, light and optically as decent as the EF-M 11-22, which should be doable, since 16-50/4 seems to be a less challenging design tasks on EF-M mount parameters. LOL

 

[BillB]

1) Agree $999 crop only lenses probably aren’t selling well. :. I still think Canon needs 1-2 good ones for folks who want to keep things small.

2) Take away the need to cover a FF image circle and I think you could have a 67-ish thread sized lens at 2/3 the weight and sell well around $599-699. Think of it like the non-L 24-105 STM lens, but for crop. And sealed. And constant max aperture. (Okay, a 24-105L for crop. You got me.)

Looking at various 16-50mm zoom lenses for APS-C mirrorless systems [@ crop 1.6 = 24-105 FOV eq.] and EF-M 18-55 / 3.5-5.6 specs [52mm filter thread, L x D 61 x 60.9 mm, 210 grams] my GUESSTIMATE is that innovative Canon should be able to make a compact, very decent IQ constant aperture Canon EF-M 16-50mm f/4 IS STM with 55mm filter thread [= max. used on EF-M lenses, eg 18-150 and 11-22], sized between 18-55 and 18-150, weight about 300 to max. 350 grams, priced at USD/€ 499. And yes, I would buy it.

OTOH I will never buy EF-M or any other crop-only lens for more than 500 - unless it were a pancake 24-200/2.8. I am generally not interested in f/1.2 or f/1.4 crop lenses. I am also not interested in even more EF-M wide-angle lenses. I am very interested in a compact, decent IQ, moderately fast EF-M portrait tele prime and would definitely buy an EF-M 85mm / 2.4 IS STM (or similar) at USD/€ 399,-

And I am convinced my preferences are shared by enough other existing and future EOS-M owners to make those 2 lenses "worthwhile". At least as worthwhile as a "minority program" EF-M 32/1.4 ... at what 599 / 799 / 999 ? Well for 999 Canon would probably have to paint a red ring on it. ;D

Benchmarking against the EF 16-35 f4, you want an EF-M 16-50 with a 50% increase in zoom range at half the weight and half the cost. I can understand why that would appeal to you.

exactly. It COULD work in EF-M mount in my OPINION. I would even take it with a plastic lens mount, LOL. Provided it is compact, light and optically as decent as the EF-M 11-22, which should be doable, since 16-50/4 seems to be a less challenging design tasks on EF-M mount parameters. LOL

So, now that is sorted out, we can sit back and see what happens. Or doesn't happen.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I am very interested in a compact, decent IQ, moderately fast EF-M portrait tele prime and would definitely buy an EF-M 85mm / 2.4 IS STM (or similar) at USD/€ 399,-

And I am convinced my preferences are shared by enough other existing and future EOS-M owners to make those 2 lenses "worthwhile". At least as worthwhile as a "minority program" EF-M 32/1.4 ...

You are convinced. Lol. A 50mm-equivalent lens is minority, but a 135mm-equivalent lens is being clamored for by the masses.

 

[ahsanford]

OTOH I will never buy EF-M or any other crop-only lens for more than 500 - unless it were a pancake 24-200/2.8. I am generally not interested in f/1.2 or f/1.4 crop lenses. I am also not interested in even more EF-M wide-angle lenses. I am very interested in a compact, decent IQ, moderately fast EF-M portrait tele prime and would definitely buy an EF-M 85mm / 2.4 IS STM (or similar) at USD/€ 399,-

And I am convinced my preferences are shared by enough other existing and future EOS-M owners...

Oh, wow, my desktop AvTvM detector just went ba-nanas. (I thought you guys were kidding before.)

- A

 

[fullstop]

You are convinced. Lol. A 50mm-equivalent lens is minority, but a 135mm-equivalent lens is being clamored for by the masses.

50 equivalent is not the issue. f/1.4 is, respectively the price i expect. Will make it a rather extreme "niche product". But, let's see. If it is compact, optically decent and USD/€ 299 I may re-consider. ;D

 

[DSP121]

I was looking for a genuine review about 'Canon EOS M50'.
Thanks for sharing the review with us!